About your Search

20120701
20120731
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
think of as the in voters, voters who voted for george w. bush during the 2000 and voted for obama in 2008, some high income voters who didn't like what obama was saying about the $250,000 expending the bush tax cuts. i found voters who are saying i think i might go for mitt romney this year after voting for obama four years ago. the reason i wanted to talk to hispanic voters is because what's interesting and happening in the polls in colorado is as mitt romney is gaining among independentents you see obama widening his lead on latino voters. this is on the votes in black month about limiting deportation for young people. i wanted to go see if that has sort of ignited enthusiasm on hispanic voters and i was surprised to see not at all. i found voters who voted for the first time in 2008, really exspite to be a part of history and has been absolutely deflated and unexcited about what obama has done. when you talk to hispanic voters in colorado immigration is not the first thing that comes up at least in my conversations, it was the economy. and on that, they're just as disappointed
came to washington-- you write about it-- some years ago, and met president george w. bush for the first time. and did that live down to your expectations? >> he lived... well, he was someone i wouldn't have voted for. his policies were not mine. but we came from the kennedy center awards, which was incredible honor, being a british person, i was bestowed this honor. and my partner and i, david, came, and we were so pleasantly surprised by george bush and his knowledge of aids. david and i and laura were social. they were so friendly and so courteous. and he was passionate about aids, and we had a ten-minute talk at the interval of a concert at the kennedy center about aids, and i was astonished about well-informed he was and his commitment to aids. and so it's the typical thing of don't judge a book by its cover until you've read the book. >> ifill: you are here in washington at this international aids conference, and you are also meeting people here on capitol hill about what they can do and what they can continue to do. do you find that government intervention is in the
count out and hurt your campaign. and it happened obviously with george w. bush in 2000 on the eve of that election in 2000, a close race it was revealed that he had been arrested for drunk driving, convicted 24 years earlier. and it became a problem. mitt romney, they've done this with mitt romney. not that there is anything of a criminal nature in his background. he made the decision he is not going to reveal. i mean nobody has ever run for president with a swiss bank account. i mean steve forbes did but-- . >> woodruff: but again you're referring to the tax return. >> ed tax returns, i just think it's all of a piece and i just think it's a problem. mitt romney should not be on the defensive, he's on its defensive. >> the response on bain in particular is easy but it's not politically popular, which is bain invested in companies that added jobs and expanded, invested in companies that reduced labor costs, by outsourcing, both domestic and international and invested in companies that closed and fired a lot of people. you know, that if you are disturbed by that, are you disturbed b
during the administrations of george w. bush and ronald reagan. he's now a senior advisor at the center for strategic and international studies. gentlemen, thank you both for being with us. john mearsheimer, i'm going to start with you. this did start with the article in foreign affairs magazine. you don't go as far as that author does in arguing that a nuclear-armed iran would be a net positive. but you do agree with him that it would bring stability to the region. why? >> i think there's no question that a nuclear-armed iran would bring stability to the region because nuclear weapons are weapons of peace. they're weapons of deterrence. they have hardly any offensive capability at all. and if iran had a nuclear deterrent, there's no way that the united states or israel, for that matter, would be threatening to attack iran now. in the same way that if saddam had had nuclear weapons in 2003, the united states would not have invaded iraq. anif libya h nuclear weapons in 2011, the united states would not have gone to war against libya. so i think that if you had a middle east where other s
, with his manufacturing ideas, yeah, absolutely. >> suarez: dem yatsic critics were very tough on george w. bush in the months following the recovery that began after 9/11. too few jobs, recovery too slow, job creation too shallow. are we in a different economic world now? isn't it just as fair a criticism as barack obama as it was of george work bush in the early part of this century? >> i think the difference there is that it's what i was just talk approximating about. i mean it's one thing for a president to not have a set of plans to get you from here to there, and here i thought mr. chen's discussion a second okay was very misleading. i don't think governo governor-- governor romney has any plans vis-a-vis job growthnd cay go through that in a second. the thing the president can say that is different is i, in fact, have a set of measures that independent people, you don't have to listen to me, listen the congressional budget office, to independent economists who scored this are saying, yeah, and it's actually not that complicated, if you provide some fiscal relief to state was have to
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)